Giza: A Warning From Antiquity - Part 3

Here is Part 3 of 5 of ‘The Pyramids of Giza: A Warning from Antiquity’. I have created a separate thread for each Part as they
essentially deal with quite specific aspects of my work. Part 5 ‘The Cataclysm’ will be made available later.

Each Part is available as a Flash or Powerpoint download. The Flash version auto-runs so it may be preferable to download the Powerpoint version as
this allows you to click through the presentation at your own pace.

Even if you are familiar with my work, I would urge that you take your time and work your way through each section before continuing to the next.
This is important in order to fully grasp the ‘big picture’ of what my work presents.

Perhaps I misunderstood your mathematical concept; I never studied trigonometry. And with the queen's pyramids it struck me that you're figuring
cycles like a man (or perhaps like a mathematician), rather than figuring cycles like a woman. Either way, I'll be dead before the next cataclysm.
However, women count cycles from the beginning of one cycle to the beginning of the next cycle. Come to think of it, calendars in general count from
the beginning to the end and start over at the beginning.

Why did you choose to have the last queen's pyramid be the marker, instead of the first pyramid in the second set?

SC: No trigonometry involved here - just very basic mathematics and astronomy.

Busymind: And with the queen's pyramids it struck me that you're figuring cycles like a man (or perhaps like a mathematician), rather than
figuring cycles like a woman. Either way, I'll be dead before the next cataclysm. However, women count cycles from the beginning of one cycle to the
beginning of the next cycle. Come to think of it, calendars in general count from the beginning to the end and start over at the beginning.

SC: You raise an interesting point here and one I have pondered over myself. Why should we add the duration (i..e 11,196 years) to the end of
the previous cycle (c.8,066BC) and not to the beginning of the cycle (c.10,550BC)?

First of all I think it is important to say that we are presented with 2 means of identifying the date of the beginning of the next cycle. One is a
visual clue (gives the approximate date) and the other is a mathematical clue which gives us a more precise date. The visual clue is in the simple
placement of the 2 sets of 'Queens Pyramids' marking the maximum culmination (c.10,550BC) and minimum culmination (c.2,500AD) of the Orion Belt
stars. Through current scientific findings we now know that some significant event happened to the Earth when the Orion Belt stars were aligned
horizontal on the Southwestern horizon (i.e. at maximum culmination). So, it is not unreasonable to speculate that the ancient Designers of this
astronomical clock show us those same stars when they are aligned on the Eastern horizon because they knew this would be the time when such events
were due to start again (2,500AD + 666 years = 3,166AD).

The mathematical method perhaps offers little more preciseness in determining the actual date than the visual clue since the Orion Belt stars are
aligned on the Eastern horizon in this manner for over 2,000 years! Indeed, they will only start to swing away from the Eastern horizon back to the
Southwestern horizon around 3,000AD.

It would have been important to tell future civilisations how long these troubled times would (potentially) last since we would need to know this in
order to plan ahead for such a time. This logically explains why we are given the start date of the cycle and the actual duration of the 'event'
(2,484 years). Because we are actually given the end date of the cycle it makes perfect logical sense to add the duration between cycles (i.e. 11,196
years) to this date and not the cycle's start date. Had we not been given this date then - and only then - would it have made more sense to add the
duration to the beginning date. Assuming non-leap years, imagine it is your birthday on the 1st of January. Your next birthday is not 365 days
later. It is 365 days, 11hours, 59mins later. In other words, we add the duration between birthdays onto the end of your actual birthday. The
concept here is similar - we must add the duration of the event itself (2,484 years) onto the duration between events (11,196 years) in order to
obtain the overall duration from the start of one event to the start of the next.

This then gives a total cycle from start point to start point of around 13,680 years. If we then subtract this from the calibrating year of 10,550BC
we find the date 3,130AD - only 36 years of difference from the visual method.

It is my belief that the Orion Belt perndulum swing was carefully chosen because the movement of these stars most closely matched the timing of this,
as yet, unknown 'event'. In these stars we have a visual clue but also the maths.

Busymind: Why did you choose to have the last queen's pyramid be the marker, instead of the first pyramid in the second set?

SC: Again, another good question. Any other combination of Queens would only have reduced the angle (years), therefore the duration between
'events'. So, I opted to show the maximum duration between 'events' as this is what I logically feel would have been expressed. The other
combinations of Queens simply produces an angle that brings the date of the 'event' further forward in time. This may in fact be the case but my
instinct tells me that the Design would show the maximum duration between cycles which is why I chose those particular 2 'Queens'.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.